AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Fishbed]

Good man! [8D]

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this.

The second group did adopt the Mk 37, along with the 4.5 DP twin turrets. I do not believe any of these could be ready in time, nor any of the third group.

I refer to Whitley, Destroyers of WWII. You are correct in regard to the commissioning dates. However, commissioning doesn't mean the ships mounted the director. Barfleur was commissioned in November 1944 to do its trials, but was then laid up awaiting delivery of the director and only just managed to reach the PTO before VJ-Day. What's more, the ship is said to have been essentially complete in March 1944.

Just as interesting is the case of "Chevron". Launched in February 1944, the ship was expected to be complete in June, 1944. It was eventually commissioned in August 1945 - 14 months late, probably largely due to late delivery of the director.

It seems that under normal conditions, one should expect British DDs to go into service about 5-6 months after their launch. How much time to get them worked up and into the PTO? Maybe 3-4 months?
If one is generous, that would mean that all ships launched until May/June 1945 could be in the PTO in march 1946 - excluding only "Vigo" of the first "Battle" group and "Creole", "Cromwell" and "Crown" of the second "C" group - assuming timely delivery of the directors.

You're largely right about the later Battles - only two of them were even launched before VE-Day; and several were not even laid down. But five were laid down in 1943 - these five might make it to the PTO before 3/1946.

[Don Bowen]

This is good data.

For British DDs, I usually use Lenton. I was a little disappointed in the new Friedman series on British DDs as it was heavily on deisgn issues and little on completion and modifications.

[Oliver Heindorf]

Hi,
I found some strange behaveiour of AE whrn creating an ASW TF out of Victoria.

Pic 1 shows the newly created TF 563. It has LCDR Bowers as TF Boss. The # at DD Rathburne indicates the Flagship of this TF.
In Vanilla WITP and its Mods the TF Commander was this way always the commander of the Boat with the # nearby.

If you select Rathburne : Pic 2 shows the selected DD Rathburne.

Surprise : Rathburne commander is Mc Neal. DD Sands, which is also in the TF has Bowers as ship captain and as TF commander. But the # indicates still Rathburne as carrying the fleet boss.

errrm ? [&:]

[Oliver Heindorf]

pic 2

[Oliver Heindorf]

pic 3

[Local Yokel]

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.  My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.  Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.
 
So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

[Gilbert]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.  My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.  Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC.
As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21.

Regards
Gilbert

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: Gilbert

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Looking at the Chidoris and the follow-on class of Otoris in the database, I was surprised to note that they start the war with no ASW weaponry whatsoever.  My sources aren't particularly comprehensive, but they suggest that both these classes were, in fact, equipped with depth charge throwers before the war's outbreak.  Looking at the Chidori drawings in Jentschura et al, I'm confident I can discern a thrower and associated ready-use ammunition rack abaft the monstrous twin 5" mount of the pre-Tomozuru Incident configuration, suggesting that a thrower was carried from the outset.

So I just wondered, are these ships sold a bit short on equipment at the war's outbreak, or do you have data suggesting that depth charge gear was actually not fitted until 1942?

Both Class ships were indeed fitted with 2 depth charge throwers (1Starboard, 1Port) from their completion date. During the war (in 1943-ish), this gear was increased to two or three DC throwers and the addition of 2 stern DC racks for a total of 48DC.
As you have stated, this can be clearly noticed in Jentschura's book and similar drawings can be found in the Japanese publication "Kojinsha's, warships of the IJN" #21.

Regards
Gilbert

Ah. Maybe I can help with that for Da Babes. There is no database update for the new patch so this little thigs will be in mod or not at all.

MO

[Local Yokel]

Gilbert, many thanks for confirming my suspicions.  I hesitated to suggest that the depth charge gear had been overlooked, since the accuracy of the ship data in AE has generally been so good.
 
Mike, good to hear that the omission could be made good in Da Babes!
 
I've just noticed larger scale drawings than Jentschura's of the Chidoris'  pre- and post-Tomozuru Incident configurations in 'Kaigun', in which the throwers and ready-use rack are more clearly shown.  'Kaigun' says that another 16 of the class were projected but cancelled in the wake of the Incident, so it appears that it also cost the IJN a good opportunity to enlarge their meagre inventory of ASW-capable vessels.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I believe all of the first group of the Battle class were to ship the Mk VI director. The first 9 were completed by Jan, 1946 with this director and the remaining seven duirng the rest of 1946. Considering slowdowns in completions of all (non-cancelled) warships after VJ day, it is possible that some or all could be completed earlier. Looking for data on this.

US and UK cancellations are significant starting from mid-1944 on (arguably a year earlier) and continuing through 1945 as allied victory became more certain and the forces required for and potentially completing in time for Downfall more defined. If a WITP scenario continues past mid-1944 with the Japanese in a better strategic position than historically, then the late war cancellations actually become unrealistic. That potentially means eight extra Essex class ships in the production queue together with the extra cruisers, CVLs, CVEs and destroyers that were historically cancelled as the need for them faded. Similarly for the RN there were large cuts in escorts with 54 Loch/Bay class frigates, 51 Castle Class corvettes and the entire Gael class of destroyers cancelled before being laid down, together with significant numbers of other destroyers from the Weapon and Battle classes cancelled on the ways.

The allies had the luxury of being able to tailor their building programme down to only those ships absolutely necessary to the strategic situation. Commanders in WITP don't have that ability and may find themselves with only historical arrivals facing a non-historical situation. IMO the in-game arrivals should be modelled on the original plans for each class rather than the actual historic commissionings. The one caveat is where a class was suspended to free the ways for other in-game construction -- e.g. the Montanas. If an allied player is tracking historical performance or doing better than historically, then I'd argue for a house rule that they should keep the extra construction in harbour in one of the East Coast ports.

Similar issues arise for air units, with a large number of marques having their historical production slashed, role redefined or even being cancelled outright as the threat from Germany and then Japan waned. A strategically strong late war Japan could realistically have found itself facing Spitefuls, Tempest Is, Furies, Seafangs and Hornets from the British side with P-80Ns, F7Fs, F8F, Fireballs and Phantoms from the US without needing to invoke any major variation from historical development.

[Anonymous]

How wonderful for you. So maybe take this 'what if' to the mod sub forum where it belongs? This is game issues thread, not a wanna be place.

You will find many people able to dispute you there, but this is not the place. So sorry.

[dwg]

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

How wonderful for you. So maybe take this 'what if' to the mod sub forum where it belongs? This is game issues thread, not a wanna be place.

You will find many people able to dispute you there, but this is not the place. So sorry.

Strangely enough the title of the thread is 'Naval and OOB Issues' which is precisely what I was addressing and my reply is clearly in context with Don Bowen's discussion of the planned movement of ships into the Pacific post-VJ day, the Battle class deliveries and request for further information, my point being that if you want to consider what ships will arrive if VJ day doesn't happen on schedule you really need to start looking in mid-43.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: dwg

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

How wonderful for you. So maybe take this 'what if' to the mod sub forum where it belongs? This is game issues thread, not a wanna be place.

You will find many people able to dispute you there, but this is not the place. So sorry.

Strangely enough the title of the thread is 'Naval and OOB Issues' which is precisely what I was addressing and my reply is clearly in context with Don Bowen's discussion of the planned movement of ships into the Pacific post-VJ day, the Battle class deliveries and request for further information, my point being that if you want to consider what ships will arrive if VJ day doesn't happen on schedule you really need to start looking in mid-43.

This is my fault. I think I may have posted a response into this thread when it really should be in the Scenario Mods thread. Sorry.

Let's just move the discussion there.

[Dutch_slith]

Gouvernementsmarine

Sources:
L.L. von Münching Schepen van de Kon. Marine in de tweede Wereldoorlog
Chris Mark Schepen van de Koninklijke Marine in W.O. II
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946
Ph.M. Bosscher De Koninklijke Marine in de Tweede Wereloorlog (3 volumes)
P.S. van't Haaff/M.J.C. Klaassen Gedenkboek Adelborsten-Opleiding te Willemsoord 1854-1954
L. Honselaar Vleugels van de Vloot
Tom Womack The Dutch Naval Air Force against Japan
F.C. Backer Dirks De Gouvernementsmarine in het voormalige Nederlands-Indie 1861 - 1949 (3 volumes)

New Ship Classes:
Albatros Type: PC Max Spd: 11 Tonnage: 807 Armament 2x37mm
Aldebaran Type: PC Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 892 Armament: none
Bellatrix Type: AVP Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 773 Armament: 1x75mmAA Aviation Support: 3
Canopus Type: PC Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 773 Armament: 2x37mm
Eridanus Type: PC Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 996 Armament: 2x37mm
Fazant Type: AVP Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 623 Armament: 1x75mmAA, 1x7.7mmAA Aviation Support: 3
Fomalhaut Type: PC Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 1001 Armament: 2x37mm
Gemma Type: PC Max Spd: 11 Tonnage: 845 Armament: 1x75mmAA
Hisp. Zeeman Type: PC Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 803 Armament: none
Merel Type: AVP Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 600 Armament: 1x75mmAA Aviation Support: 3
Orion Type: PC max Spd: 14 Tonnage: 1052 Armament: none
Pollux Type: PC Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 1012 Armament: 1x75mmAA
Sirius Type: AVP Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 1018 Armament: 1x75mmAA, 1x7.7mmAA Aviation Support: 3
Tydeman Type: PC Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 1160 Armament: 2x37mm
Wega Type: PC Max Spd: 12 Tonnage: 1014 Armament: 1x75mmAA
Willebrord Snellius Type: PC Max Spd: 10 Tonnage: 930 Armament: 1x75mmAA

Ship Class changes:
258- Month: 12 Max Spd: 17 Cruise Spd: 11 Endurance: 6330 Fuel: 240 Tonnage: 1011 AA: 1x7,7mm (no 12.7mmAA) Aviation Support: 3*
2718- Max Spd: 10 Armament: none
2719- should be deleted
287- Armament: 1x75mmAA 2x12.7mmAA Aviation Support: 3
288- should be deleted
278- Cruise Spd: 10 Tonnage: 1631 Mines: 150
279- Tonnage: 1631 Mines: 150 Upgrade: 279
2709- should be deleted
2691- Type: AKE Upgrade: 2691 Armament: 2x75mmAA 2x20mmAA 4x7.7mmAA
2692- never upgraded, should be deleted
250-/251-/289-/290-/291-/292- obsolete, should be deleted

* Endurance calculated: consumption was 10 tons/24 hours at cruising speed

New Ship:
Willebrord Snellius Ship Class: Willebrord Snellius Captain: van Hoboken, W. Location: Soerabaja
Delay: 411206 Sunk: 420306

Ship changes:
9803- Ship Class: Albatros Captain: Alfrink, A.H. Location: Ambon
9796- Ship Class: Aldebaran Captain: Verkerk, J.H. Location: Soerabaja
9630- Captain: Tjerkstra, E.J. Location: near Waigeo (Sorong) Sunk: 420301
9629- Captain: Kool, A. Location: Ambon Delay: 411224 Sunk: 420308 AA: none
9800- Ship Class: Canopus Captain: Waayenberg, T.G. Location: Koepang Sunk: 420305
9801- Ship Class: Bellatrix Captain: Cornelisse, B. Location: Merak Sunk: 420301
9802- Ship Class: Canopus Captain: Berlijn, G.P. Location: Singapore Sunk: 420204
10012- Captain: Bakker, P.J.
9797- Ship Class: Eridanus Captain: Troost, R. Location: Makassar
9807- Ship Class: Fazant Captian: Keizer, E.J. Location: Alor Sunk: 420301
9795- Name: Fomalhaut Ship Class: Fomalhaut Captain: Bennink, D. Location: Ambon
9804- Ship Class: Gemma Captain: Frenay, P.J. Location: Makassar
9799- Name: Hisp. Zeeman Ship Class: Hisp. Zeeman Captain: Tismeer, W.H.
Location: Batavia Sunk: 420305
9805- Ship Class: Merel Captain: Klerk, P.W.H. Sunk: 420301
9806- Ship Class: Merel Captain: van Melle, E.K. Location: Ambon Sunk: 420228
9791- Ship Class: Orion Location: Balikpapan Sunk: 420122
decommissioned, served as lightship at Balikpapan
9792- Ship Class: Pollux Captain: Stal, W.
9790- Captain: Kunst, G. Location: Pontianak Sunk: 420301
9654- Captain: ten Brink, B.J. Mines: 150
9794- Ship Class: Sirius Captain: Hokke, C. Location: Merak Sunk: 420228
9798- Ship Class: Tydeman Captain: Blok, C. Delay: 411215 Sunk: 420304
9793- Ship Class: Wega Captain: van Berkum, A.E. Location: Sabang Sunk: 420126
9664- Captain: van Rooy, W.F.

New Leaders:
Alfrink, A.H. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Verkerk, J.H. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Tjerkstra, E.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Somers, F.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 420131
Kool, A. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Cornelisse, B. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Waayenberg, T.G. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Berlijn, G.P. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Bakker, P.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Troost, R. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Keizer, E.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Bennink, D. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Frenay, P.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Tismeer, W.H. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Klerk, P.W.H. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
van Melle, E.K. Rank: LT Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Stal, W. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Kunst, G. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
ten Brink, B.J. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201 *
Hokke, C. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
Blok, C. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
van Berkum, A.E. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
van Hoboken, W. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201
van Rooy, W.F. Rank: LCDR Type: Ship Delay: 411201

* = Koninklijke Marine


last to come: Dutch Merchant Fleet

[Don Bowen]

Thanks for this data, and am looking forward to the next batch.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
This is my fault.

Nope. Not at all.

ORIGINAL: dwg
Strangely enough the title of the thread is 'Naval and OOB Issues' which is precisely what I was addressing and my reply is clearly in context with Don Bowen's discussion of the planned movement of ships into the Pacific post-VJ day, the Battle class deliveries and request for further information, my point being that if you want to consider what ships will arrive if VJ day doesn't happen on schedule you really need to start looking in mid-43.

Mr Bowen was asking about actual, physical, existing ships that had documentary proof of their (potential) assignment/designation to Pacific operations in the period immediate to the Japanese surrender.

“What if” building program developments are not part of the paradigm, neither in the stock game, nor in Da Babes, and so are not issues. Accordingly, I am moving your main post to the Mod sub-forum, where it can be discussed without interfering with a “game” issues thread.

Thanks for your understanding, and definitely come play. John

[Zemke]

I have a question or possible OOB mistake. While looking through the Japanes Battleship line up I noticed that the Fuso Class Battleships have more armor than the Nagato Class Battleships, but the Fuso Class is an older model and laid down 11 March 1912, prior to WWI, while the Nagato Class was laid down 1 June 1918, and was the last BB Class built before the limitations of the Washington Treaty.

The Fuso has an armor rating in the game of 300/145/300 of belt/deck/tower and the Nagato Class armor ratings in the game are 270/150/375. My question is why does the Nagato Class have less belt armor than the Fuso Class, even though it was built at the end of the WW I, well after the threat of torpedos had been established. Also the Nagato Class was the last BB Class ships built prior to the Yamato Class.

[PzB74]

Would it be possible to add an option that makes it possible to manually enter the amount of supplies / fuel to be loaded on a given TF?
- This is a challenge when e.g. loading up an invasion TF, e.g. there is room for 5000 troops and 50000 supplies.
What you want is to only load 10000 supplies but after only one days loading in a big port all 50k will be aboard.

What I do now is to create a separate cargo TF and order it to merge with the main TF...

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I have a question or possible OOB mistake. While looking through the Japanes Battleship line up I noticed that the Fuso Class Battleships have more armor than the Nagato Class Battleships, but the Fuso Class is an older model and laid down 11 March 1912, prior to WWI, while the Nagato Class was laid down 1 June 1918, and was the last BB Class built before the limitations of the Washington Treaty.

The Fuso has an armor rating in the game of 300/145/300 of belt/deck/tower and the Nagato Class armor ratings in the game are 270/150/375. My question is why does the Nagato Class have less belt armor than the Fuso Class, even though it was built at the end of the WW I, well after the threat of torpedos had been established. Also the Nagato Class was the last BB Class ships built prior to the Yamato Class.

No, the thinner belt on the Nagato is correct, the Fuso class had a maximum belt thickness of 305 mm which was tapered down to 102 mm at the lower edge, while the Nagato class had a maximum thickness of 300 mm that was tapered down to 152 mm over the lower third of the belt, so on average their belt is thinner. The following Tosa class (of which only Kaga was completed as a carrier) would have had a belt only 280 mm thick but inclined outward by 15 degrees. The Nagato and all following classes were designed as fast battleships with a speed of almost 27 kts (as fast as early battle cruisers) and that meant using a greater proportion of the displacement for machinery and less weight for armor. The USN in the same timescale kept the speed at the 21 kts level but increased belt thickness - a different design philosophy.